PART A

1. The period of time between 1763 and 1914 stands as a period during which Europe was, directly or indirectly, the master of the world. In 1909, Lord Ronaldshay wrote the following:

Above all I wish to urge upon you once again the immense vista of difficulty and possibility of danger opened up by the newly awakened ambitions and aspirations of the Eastern races. What may be the final outcome of the collision . . . it is impossible to foretell. This, however, is certain—that contact with Western thought and Western ideals has exercised a revivifying influence upon all the races of the East. Those that have come into sharpest contact with it have exhibited most markedly its effects.

Consider non-Western nations, and discuss the selections in the light of Ronaldshay’s statement. How applicable is this statement to non-Western nations impacted by Western culture during the latter half of the time period? Evaluate Ronaldshay’s thesis in light of this analysis.

What other documents would you include, and why?

Source: A prominent Indian, S. Banerjea, wrote this reminiscence in 1925.

Our forefathers, the firstfruits of English education, were violently pro-British. They could see no flaw in the civilization or culture of the West. They were charmed by its novelty and strangeness. The enfranchisement of the individual, the substitution of the right of private judgement in the place of traditional authority, the exaltation of duty over custom, all came with a force and suddenness of a revelation to an Oriental people who knew no more binding obligation than the mandate of immemorial usage and of venerable tradition . . . . Everything English was good—even the drinking of brandy was a virtue; everything not English was to be viewed with suspicion . . . . In due time came the reaction, and with a sudden rush. And from the adoration of all things Western, we are now in a whirlpool that would recall us back to our ancient civilization and our time-honored ways and customs untempered by the impact of the ages that have rolled by and the forces of modern life.

Source: In 1924, Chinese leader Dr. Sun Yat-sen gave the following speech after the Japanese victory over Russia.

Thirty years ago . . . men thought and believed that European civilization was a progressive one—in science, industry, manufacture, and armament—and that Asia had nothing to compare with it. Consequently, they assumed that Asia could never resist Europe, that European oppression could never be shaken off. Such was the prevailing idea thirty years ago. It was a pessimistic idea. Even after Japan abolished the Unequal Treaties and attained the status of an independent country, Asia, with the exception of a few countries situated near Japan, was little influenced. Ten years later, however, the Russo-Japanese war broke out and Russia was defeated by Japan. For the first time in the history of the last several hundred years, an Asiatic country has defeated a European Power. The effect of this victory immediately spread over the whole of Asia, and gave a new hope to all Asiatic peoples. In the year of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war I was in Europe. One day news came that Admiral Togo had defeated the Russian navy, annihilating in the Japan Sea the fleet newly despatched [sic] from Europe to Vladivostock. The population of the whole continent was taken aback. Britain was Japan’s Ally, yet most of the British people were painfully surprised for in their eyes Japan’s victory over Russia was certainly not a blessing for the White peoples. “Blood,” after all, “is thicker than water.” Later on I sailed for Asia. When the steamer passed the Suez Canal a number of natives came to see me. All of them wore smiling faces, and asked me whether I was a Japanese. I replied that I was a Chinese, and inquired what was in their minds, and why they were so happy. They said they had just heard the news that Japan had completely destroyed the Russian fleet recently despatched [sic] from Europe, and were wondering how true the story was. Some of them, living on both banks of the Canal had witnessed Russian hospital ships, with wounded on board, passing through the Canal from time to time. That was surely proof of the Russian defeat, they added.

In former days, the coloured races in Asia, suffering from the oppression of the Western peoples, thought that emancipation was impossible. We regarded the Russian defeat by Japan as the defeat of the West by the East. We regarded the Japanese victory as our own victory. It was indeed a happy event. Did not therefore this news of Russia’s defeat by Japan affect the peoples of the whole of Asia? Was not its effect tremendous?

Source: An Englishman in Persia in 1906 wrote the following letter.

It seems to me that a change must be coming over the East. The victory of Japan has, it would appear, had a remarkable influence all over the East. Even here in Persia it has not been without effect. . . . Moreover, the Russian Revolution has had a most astounding effect here. Events in Russia have been watched with great attention; and a new spirit would seem to have come over the people. They are tired of their rulers, and, taking example of Russia, have come to think that it is possible to have another and better form of government . . . it almost seems that the East is stirring in its sleep. In China, there is a marked movement against foreigners, and a tendency towards the ideal of “China for the Chinese.” In Persia, owing to its proximity to Russia, the awakening would appear to take the form of a movement towards democratic reform. In Egypt and North Africa it is signalized by a remarkable increase in fanaticism, coupled with the spread of the Pan-Islamic movement. The simultaneousness of these symptoms of unrest is too remarkable to be attributed solely to coincidence. Who knows? Perhaps the East is really awakening from its secular slumber, and we are about to witness the rising of these patient millions against the exploitation.

Source: The following is from an eyewitness account of turmoil in Sierra Leone.

. . . I am a Sierra Leonean. We lived at Bolian on the Mapelle River, Kassi Lake. The policemen’s [indigenous people in service to the Belgians] treatment gave rise to this war. When they were sent to collect the [hut] tax, they used to ill-use the natives, and took their wives. They beat the man and assaulted the wife and daughter, and threatened his daughter with a knife if she cried out. In the place where we were (Bolian), Captain Carr [the British District Commissioner] spent three days. The police caught all the fowls in the town.

Question: did nobody complain to Captain Carr? Answer: All the people ran away while Captain Carr was there, till he had left. Captain Carr came at 2. The people ran away. He asked for the Head Chief. He said he would burn the town if the headman did not come. Mr. smith brought the man to town, and he promised to pay the [hut] tax in a week’s time. The next day a messenger, Williams, came to say he must pay in three days.. . .

We were afterwards caught by the war-boys [rebels], and I was with them for six weeks. On 29th April a sudden attack was made on Bolian. We went away in a boat, my husband, myself, a constable, and several others. In less than half an hour we got to town, and over 200 people came on us with cutlasses, sticks and guns. They rushed the policeman . . . and killed him, and took his gun, and then threw him into the sea. . . . They killed my husband at my feet. I asked them, “Why do you punish Sierra Leoneans so?” They say, “You pay the hut tax.” They say, “The Sierra Leoneans with Bai Bureh had not paid the tax, so they did not kill them.” . . . They say to me afterwards, “the Government say we must not keep slaves, nor have women palaver, nor pledge human beings. We say, “All right.” They come, last of all, and say we must pay for these dirty huts. . . . The Government look on us as a lazy people, but the whole of us will die before we pay this tax. We will kill Captain Carr, and then the Governor will come; we will kill the Governor, and then the Queen will come herself.